Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June 23, 2014, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the Federal Reserve, and if you want a real stemwinder of a conversation here on the House floor, Mr. Speaker, I recommend the Federal Reserve to you. It is nonstop laughs and giggles and interesting information.

I can't get started without referencing my friend from the District of Columbia who just spoke, and she spoke with such passion. I have the great pleasure of serving on the House Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. As you know, it meets right behind the wall up there. It is the only committee that meets in the Capitol, and the Delegate from the District of Columbia is often there, speaking just as passionately on behalf of her constituents.

It is hard because, as she spoke with absolute certainty about the role that the District of Columbia plays, the Constitution speaks with similar certainty, and that is what makes it a difficult conversation to have.

The Constitution set up this governing district and gave those responsibilities to the U.S. Congress to administer.

Now, the Home Rule Act--and if folks haven't looked at the Home Rule Act, it is a fascinating read. Like so many things that we do in this Chamber, it was done for all the right reasons and has its fair set of unintended surprises along the way.

Here is what the Constitution says in article I, section 8, and it says, in part, this:

Responsibilities of the Congress, to exercise exclusive

legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district, not

exceeding 10 miles square, as may, by cession of particular

States--you will remember, Virginia and Maryland both ceded

real estate in order to create the District of Columbia, we

used Maryland's half, we gave back Virginia's half--and the

acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of

the United States, and to exercise like authority over all

places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the

State in which the same shall be.

Exclusive jurisdiction granted to the Congress by the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, but then we passed a statute that gave certain home rule rights and responsibilities away.

Now, that statute, of course, is secondary to the Constitution. The Constitution is controlling. The statute is secondary, and that statute grants the rights and the privileges that the Delegate was referencing.

That happens so often here, Mr. Speaker, that we have constitutional responsibilities, and then we have statutory authorities, and sometimes, those come into conflict.

I happen to have one of those on my mind tonight, and it is the Federal Reserve Act, Mr. Speaker. If you are ever looking for a good read, can't quite get to sleep in the evening, let me suggest the Federal Reserve Act to you.

It is not a fascinating read, but it is an incredibly important read, and it says, in part, this--this is the Federal Reserve Act, Mr. Speaker. You can't see it from where you are, but it says this:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and

the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long-run

growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate

with the economy's long-run potential to increase production,

so as----and this is the important part----so as to promote

effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices,

and moderate long-term interest rates.

The authority to control the Nation's money supply lies here in Congress. The authority to control interest rates, as they are related to the money supply, lies here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress delegated that to the Federal Reserve Board through the Federal Reserve Act, and the Federal Reserve Board's mission, again, is to:

Promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable

prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had this conversation before. If you have ever been in a high school economics class, you are thinking, hey, wait a minute; can I really promote full employment and interest rate moderation with the same language? Don't I lower interest rates in order to get maximum employment? Don't these things sometimes run countercyclically to one other?

It is a very difficult mandate that we had given the Federal Reserve. I want to talk about how they have handled that because, Mr. Speaker, the frustration I hear from folks back home is:

You are the United States Congress, why can't you get things done? Why won't you move together? Why won't you be effective? In what? In growing jobs and expanding the economy.

Now, we have done some things here of which I am very proud-- collaborative things, bipartisan things, bicameral things--that have absolutely taken us a few steps in the right direction. I wish we were moving more rapidly in the right direction. I am finding it harder to get agreement here than I expected, 3 years ago, when I came to this body.

The Federal Reserve then has taken it upon themselves, through this Federal Reserve Act mandate that I read earlier, to try to improve, stabilize--insert your favorable word here. They are not villains. They are out to help try to improve our economy.

What I have here, Mr. Speaker--again, you can't see it. I have the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. Now, what is important about the balance sheet, Mr. Speaker--I go back to 2007, and what you see is the Federal Reserve's balance sheet is relatively stable, just over about $800 billion.

Now, again, if you are working in a high school economics class--this is not the millions with an m. This is billions with a b. $800 billion is the typical size of the balance sheet at the Federal Reserve, but we enter these financial crises in 2008, 2009, 2010, the size of the Federal Reserve balance sheet doubled, and then it quadrupled. It doubled, and then it quadrupled.

Mr. Speaker, in the period of about 3 months, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet went from $800 billion up above $2.4 trillion.

I want you to think about that. The budget of the entire United States of America is about $3.5 trillion. It goes up. It goes down. It is about $3.5 trillion. In the span of about 3 months, the Federal Reserve--created by Congress, empowered by Congress--expanded its balance sheet without any additional approval of Congress by about $1.7 trillion.

The Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet in 3 months by twice as much as the entire Federal Government spent in that same period of time without a single vote, without a single conversation in this Chamber, without a bit of consent from the Speaker, from the majority leader of the Senate, from the White House, $1.7 trillion.

Now, you can't see the colors on the chart, Mr. Speaker. The balance sheet, of course, has a variety of components to it. Traditional security holdings that the Federal Reserve has always had, those actually are a smaller part of those holdings today.

What we are looking at is, in this beige area, it is long-term bond purchases. It is Federal Government debt purchases.

It doesn't take a long conversation to begin to get concerned when an entity created by the Federal Government is actually buying all of the Federal Government debt--or at least a substantial portion of it.

What does that mean to our long-term economic growth?

Again, if the Federal Reserve was enacted to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates, then how is doubling the balance sheet, tripling the balance sheet--now we are just almost at $4 trillion. That is beyond quadrupling the balance sheet. That is coming close to quintupling the balance sheet. What does this mean about the long-term economic security of America?

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is something that happens--$4 trillion-- without a single vote in this Chamber, without a single vote across the Capitol in the Senate, without a single signature by the President, and without any consent by the American people whatsoever. Four trillion dollars in balance sheet expansion with not a single bit of consent of the governed.

Well, why is that important, Mr. Speaker? It is because this doesn't happen by accident. This happens in response to a crisis. Now, this Chamber responds to crises, and the administration responds to crises. But the Federal Reserve responded to an economic crisis. It tried to do what it could do to help the economy grow.

Well, I happen to have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, the testimony from then-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, February 9, 2011. Now, Mr. Speaker, you won't remember February 9, 2011 here in this Chamber, but that was my first month on the job. I had just gotten sworn in, and they had just given me the voting card for the Seventh District of Georgia. I am sitting in the House Budget Committee, and here comes Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to talk to me--just a freshman here in Congress--about economic policy and how it is we are going to grow the American economy.

Well, that might have been my first month on the job, but it wasn't Chairman Paul Ryan's first month on the job. He was a veteran. He was our chairman at that time, as he is today. He was a veteran of the budget process, and he asked Dr. Bernanke: I am looking at the expansion of the balance sheet. The chairman said: I am looking at QE2--quantitative easing 2 at the time it was called--and I am trying to figure out what this is going to do to the economy long term.

I want to quote from Chairman Bernanke because it is important. The clarity is important. Chairman Paul Ryan was asking whether or not all of this work by the Fed was going to monetize our debt, whether inflation was going to come and we were going to solve our debt problems by just inflating everybody's money right out of existence.

And Chairman Bernanke said:

No, sir. No, sir. Monetization would involve a permanent

increase in the money supply to basically pay the

government's bills through money creation.

That is not what we are doing, he says.

He says this:

What we are doing here is a temporary measure which will be

reversed so that at the end of this process, the money supply

will be normalized, the amount of the Fed's balance sheet

will be normalized, and there will be no permanent increase,

either in the Fed's balance sheet, or in inflation.

In February, 2011, Chairman Ben Bernanke says that the Fed's balance sheet will be normalized. The Fed balance sheet will return to a normal level because what was happening at the Fed at that time was a temporary measure.

Again, Mr. Speaker, you won't be able to read these numbers, but I want to help you find February 2011 on this chart. February 2011 is right here. Right here.

It was at this point where you see a mild dip, Mr. Speaker, where Chairman Ben Bernanke said that the balance sheet--which has risen not to twice its normal levels but to three times its normal levels--this is a temporary measure, and the balance sheet will begin to return to normal. Mr. Speaker, we are 3 years later, and far from returning to normal, the size of the balance sheet has doubled.

Temporary measure. Don't worry about it. We are on our way, going to return to normal. But rather than return to normal, the size of the balance sheet has again doubled. Not one vote in this Chamber. Not one vote across the Capitol in the Senate. Not one signature by the United States President. Not one bit of consent from the 300 million Americans who are governed. Balance sheet doubled.

What does that mean? Why is this important? Mr. Speaker, I know what you are saying. I promised you a humdinger of Federal Reserve conversation this afternoon. I told you the Federal Reserve was an exciting topic, and you are thinking, Rob, you are talking balance sheets. Balance sheets don't inspire me at all. Well, okay, what about interest rates, Mr. Speaker? Do you remember the interest rates of the 1970s? Because I do. Do you remember when getting a 12 percent mortgage was getting a pretty good deal? Because I do.

Folks don't realize that today. If you were born after the 1970s, you have been in a time of relatively moderate interest rates. This, what I have here is 10-year interest rates, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Treasury 10- year rates. And I go back to about 1960 and we track these rates out. Back in the 1960s, they were about 5 percent, 4 percent. Go right on up there into the end of the Carter years, the beginning of the Reagan years, hit 16 percent on a 10-year Treasury coming out of the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker. And then after those Carter, Reagan years, you begin to see those numbers decline. And you go all the way out now and you are looking at yields under 2 percent.

Mr. Speaker, these are interest rates on money the Federal Government borrows. Now, again, I hate to dwell too much on my high school economics class lessons, but you know how interest works, right? If there is a lot of something and you want to borrow it, you pay a little bit of interest. But if there is not much of something and you want to borrow it, you have to pay more interest. Or, conversely, if there is a lot of debt, in order to get folks to buy that debt, you have to pay higher interest rates. But if there is only a little debt, to get folks to buy that debt, you pay lower rates.

Well, we have more debt in this country than we have ever had before, Mr. Speaker. Never before in the history of this country have we had as much debt as we have now. Never before have we rolled that debt up above the size of the GDP as we have now. Never before have we borrowed as much from the next generation of Americans sacrificing their future prosperity for our current benefit. Never before. So you would think that we would be paying the highest rates in American history.

Let's go to the chart. No. No. The highest rates in American history were back in the late 1970s, early 1980s, Mr. Speaker. What we are paying are the lowest interest rates in American history. Now, I want you to sort through that with me, Mr. Speaker. We have more debt than we have ever had before. We are borrowing more from the world than we have ever tried to borrow from the world before, and yet interest rates on our borrowing are going down instead of up--going down instead of up.

The debt today in America, Mr. Speaker, is four times higher than it was in the late 1990s. Yet, the interest service on the debt today is the same because we are borrowing at these low teaser rates.

What enables these low teaser rates? Among other things, when the Federal Reserve is willing to buy those bonds, long-term Treasury purchases. You see them right here. They didn't even exist prior to 2009. Now those purchases have grown to over $1 trillion. It turns out that you can get lower interest rates on your money if you are willing to buy it from yourself and pay yourself back. You can charge less.

But what does that mean to long-term economic security in this country, Mr. Speaker? Because that sounds a little bit like a dangerous Ponzi scheme to me. Maybe there is something aberrant about the 10-year rates.

So, I want to look here, Mr. Speaker. Again, you can't see my colors, but I charted those 10-year yields from 2009 out until today, and I have coordinated them with the implementation of this Federal Reserve policy called quantitative easing. The red squares, Mr. Speaker, indicate when quantitative easing stops. The green squares indicate when quantitative easing starts. Quantitative begins 2009, QE2, QE1 ends.

QE2 begins, QE2 ends. QE3 begins, QE3 not yet quite ended. And you will see that the interest rates directly correspond--directly correspond--to when these Federal Reserve programs begin and end. Dramatic manipulation of interest rates. Again, not a single vote in this Chamber, not a single vote across the Capitol in the Senate, not a single signature by the President, and not a single bit of consent from the hundreds of millions of Americans who are governed. Interest rates being manipulated.

It is not just the 10-year rates, Mr. Speaker; it is the 30-year rates, too. Again, this is long-term money. If you borrow almost $18 trillion--as we have borrowed here in this country--you are not going to pay that overnight. That is a long-term promise. So you would expect that these long-term rates would be getting higher and higher and higher and higher because the risk is greater and greater and greater. Again, we threaten America's fiscal security by borrowing from tomorrow's generations to pay for today's benefits. It is fair to question the morality of that, Mr. Speaker.

If you started your small business on the day that Jesus Christ was born, and you lost $1 million on your first day in business, but you worked hard, you worked 7 days a week, Mr. Speaker, from the day Jesus Christ was born until today, and you lost $1 million every single day, you would have to work for another 730 years, Mr. Speaker, to lose your first trillion dollars--your first trillion dollars. Another 700 years, $1 million a day, 7 days a week to lose your first trillion dollars.

We have borrowed from tomorrow's children, from tomorrow's generation, from tomorrow's prosperity almost $18 trillion. Yet interest rates are going down.

Why is that? It is because, number one, we are the best of all the worst economies on the planet. Let's be clear. Of all the disastrous economies on the planet, ours is the least disastrous. And so folks still want to come and buy American debt. Thank goodness. Forbid the thought that one of these other economies is going to improve one of these days, we are going to have a harder time finding debt service. How much more of our own money can the Federal Reserve buy? Most debt in American history. Highest percent of GDP in American history. Interest rates going down.

Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe this all sounds like a pretty good scheme, then, if I can borrow as much money as I want to beyond historical norms but I can keep interest rates as low as I want to below historical norms. Maybe what this means is I found the secret mechanism for making money--I can just create prosperity for the American people out of thin air.

Well, it turns out that is not quite true. In fact, it is not even close. What I have here, Mr. Speaker, is the dollar index. The dollar index is an index of the value of the American dollar around the globe. Because a dollar is meaningless. What is meaningful is how much a dollar can purchase. If I can only purchase one Coca-Cola, Mr. Speaker, with a dollar, then that dollar is worth one Coca-Cola. If I can purchase 12 Cokes with a dollar, then that dollar is worth a whole lot more to me. It is still just a dollar. We don't care about the dollar. We care about how much it will purchase. That is what this chart shows.

Again, Mr. Speaker, QE1 goes into effect, QE1 ends. QE2 goes into effect. QE2 is announced, it goes into effect, QE2 ends. QE3 is announced, it goes into effect, it goes out over the horizon. This is what I want you to see, Mr. Speaker: QE1 goes into effect, and in the midst of the QE1 operation, before it begins to wind down, the value of a dollar has dropped by 15 percent.

I want you to think about that. If we tried to pass a bill in this Chamber that looked at everything that everybody had in this entire great country of ours and taxed it all at 15 percent to bring that in immediately, what do you think the chances are we would pass that? What do you think the chances are we would get one vote on that? The Senate wouldn't pass it. The President wouldn't sign it. But, yet, when we devalue our dollar, we devalue everything that everybody has by the exact same percentage.

In the case of QE1, 15 percent reduction before that program decided to wind down. Come over here to QE2. It is another 5 percent reduction in the value of the dollar, Mr. Speaker.

Here is the thing. We can print as much money as we want to. It is our right as a sovereign nation. But the more you print, the less valuable it becomes. That is what Chairman Ryan was asking when he was asking Chairman Bernanke if he planned to monetize the debt. He was asking: Do you plan to print so much money that the money itself becomes less valuable? If you owe $1 trillion, do you plan to print so much money that you pay back the trillion dollars with these newly printed dollars that are worth only a fraction of what the original borrowed money was worth?

QE1, dollar collapses 15 percent. QE2, dollar down 5 percent. For every action, there is a reaction, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Reserve has these mandates: interest rates, inflation, full employment. There are only so many levers they can pull. And, in fact, the answer is that they have run out of levers, Mr. Speaker. That is why you see the balance sheet looking the way it is today. Look at all these lines that never existed before in the history of the country. Look at these lines. Long-term Treasury purchases. That is new. That is something that has just been implemented in the last 5 years. Folks ran out of tools.

Look at this line, Mr. Speaker. Federal agency debt. Mortgage-backed securities. Whoever thought of the Federal Reserve purchasing mortgage-

backed securities--by the billions? Monthly, by the billions never existed before in the history of this country--an expanding part of the balance sheet today.

Mr. Speaker, there are only so many tools that the Federal Reserve has to use in order to try to keep this economy afloat, each one of these tools never approved by the Congress, never approved by the President, never approved by the American people; and yet, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet is now larger than the entire budget of the United States of America. Isn't it time we have this conversation?

Chairman Ryan says: Isn't this monetizing the debt?

Chairman Ben Bernanke says: No, this is a temporary measure. Balance sheet levels will return to level.

When were they going to return to normal? Well, that comment was in February of 2011. Since that time, we have seen another 100 percent increase in the size of that balance sheet.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the Federal Reserve is wrong. I have some grave concerns. We have asked the question: How is it you are going to unwind these giant balance sheets?

The answer is: I don't know. We have never seen it done in the entire history of the United States of America, but don't worry about it, it is going to be fine.

It is a frightening thing. Here we are, in the longest recession of my lifetime, the most stagnant growth coming out of a recession, that we have ever seen coming out of a recession in the history of this country, the Federal Reserve pulling all of the levers it knows how to pull, Congress pulling all of the levers it knows how to pull, the balance sheet getting larger, unwinding it getting harder.

I want you to open up The Wall Street Journal the next time you have a chance, Mr. Speaker, and keep an eye on this dollar index. I can't say it too strongly, that if I tried to pass a 5 percent tax on everything that everybody has, everybody earns, everybody owns, I would be laughed right out of this Chamber; yet through monetary policy, we could devalue all of those exact things by that exact amount, and nobody would even know.

There would be no record of debate here in this Chamber. There would be no record of a vote in the Senate. There would be no bill that the President signs or vetoes. It would happen with the stroke of a pen with the Federal Reserve Governors, and America would be none the wiser. Every day, you can find it. Track that dollar index, Mr. Speaker.

What happens when you start to devalue money, Mr. Speaker, is you start running into inflation, and we see that. I talked earlier about what happened in those Carter years before President Reagan came in.

We were looking at annual inflation way up above 12 percent--back after World War II, again, printing a lot of money, borrowing a lot of money, economic turmoil, even though people were at work, maximum employment, but inflation rate was up about 18 percent, but here we go. This chart is from 1946 out to 2014.

Folks ask: Rob, why are you so worried? Isn't inflation kind of low today?

Inflation is incredibly low today. Think about that. We have pumped all of this new money into the economy. We have all this additional liquidity. We have all this cash parked on the sidelines, and yet inflation is incredibly low, but ticking up.

The question isn't what is inflation today, Mr. Speaker. The question is: When inflation starts to move, will we be able to control it?

We have spent so many of our tools trying to stimulate the economy, and again, we can question whether or not that was the intent of the Federal Reserve Act when it was passed, to have all of these new levers created and pulled in a time of economic crisis, but they have been created, and they have been pulled; and so when inflation comes, will we still have any tools in the toolbox to control it?

This is not just my fear, Mr. Speaker. You can go this week to The Wall Street Journal. This is June 9:

Inflation is rising in the United States and could become a

serious problem sooner than the Federal Reserve and many

others now recognize.

Going to the end of that article:

The key to the future is how the Fed will respond when

prices steadily rise above its 2 percent target rate, while

the overall unemployment rate is still relatively high. A

misinterpretation of labor-market slack and a failure to

create a positive real Federal funds rate could put the

economy on a path of rapidly rising inflation.

In the old days, the Federal Reserve, with all of the power it has and all of the levers it has to pull, all of the tools in its toolbox, focused on inflation and interest rates and employment; but with all of those levers having been pulled, with inflation on the rise, with unemployment stubbornly high, and with interest rates stubbornly low, what levers are left to pull when the next crisis comes?

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of if the next crisis comes, it is a question of when the next crisis comes, and when we do these extraordinary things to solve today's crisis, we put America at risk for tomorrow's crisis.

I do not fault those folks who are trying to make things better, but I do fault us as an institution if we allow the prosperity of tomorrow to be traded away to treat the ills of today.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve Act, commit it to your reading. We will be down here again because this is an issue that this Chamber must exercise our article I controls.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, June 13, 2014, at 11 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I have the Federal Reserve on my mind this morning.

You can't really get through the Federal Reserve in 5 minutes, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to start down the road today because I saw a headline Bloomberg reported to say that what had been intended to be the beginning of an unwinding of a Federal Reserve balance sheet wasn't going to occur in the timely fashion that had been intended. This was news to me, based on what we have seen in the Budget Committee.

I have with me this morning the Federal Reserve Act authorization. Folks often wonder where the Federal Reserve comes from. The truth is it comes from the Federal Reserve Act.

I point to section 2A, ``Monetary policy objectives.'' Its says that:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Open

Market Committee shall maintain long-run growth of the

monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the

economy's long-run potential to increase production, so as to

promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable

prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

Now, I know there are some high school economic students out there who are thinking: Hey, wait a minute. Can you really promote stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates with the same set of policies?

I share that high school economics concern about whether or not those three goals can be pursued collectively, but this is the mandate the Federal Reserve has, and this is why the Federal Reserve is involved in what they are involved in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have here is the Federal Reserve balance sheet. It goes back to 2007, back when the Federal Reserve balance sheet was relatively stable. By stable, I mean it was at about $800 billion--$800 billion, the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.

I want you to watch on the chart as we go out through these stable times, right up until the balance sheet triples in 2008. Now, when we are trying to promote economic stability, the tripling of any government balance sheet should be of concern. The Federal Reserve balance sheet triples in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a hearing transcript from my very first month on the Budget Committee. That occurred 3 years ago. It was 2011, and Chairman Paul Ryan was questioning Ben Bernanke, then the Federal Reserve chairman.

Chairman Ryan said, ``I want to talk to you about QE2''--quantitative easing 2--and what it is doing to the American economy.

Chairman Bernanke's response was this, Mr. Speaker. He said:

What we are doing here is a temporary measure which will be

reversed, so that at the end of this process, the money

supply will be normalized, the amount of the Fed's balance

sheet will be normalized, and there will be no permanent

increase, either in money outstanding, in the Fed's balance

sheet, or in inflation.

That was February 2011. I point to February 2011 on my chart here, Mr. Speaker, where the Federal Reserve chairman said that the balance sheet would begin to normalize.

What I want you to observe in the intervening months between February 2011, when normalization was discussed and projected, we have actually seen the balance sheet increase almost 100 percent. Today, we are met with the news that a return to a normalized balance sheet may be delayed even further.

Mr. Speaker, these are decisions on which no Member of this Chamber votes. These are decisions on which no member of America's board of directors--being the American voters--have a voice, and this is a decision that will either rescue or destroy the economic future of this country.

It needs to be discussed more often, Mr. Speaker. I intend to bring these issues to the floor on a regular basis. No harm will come from shining the bright light of transparency on these Federal Reserve decisions. No harm will come from incorporating 330 million Americans into this debate about America's economic security.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time this afternoon.

I am sorry you are not going to get the benefit of the posters I brought down here with me because I am talking about a topic that is not one we bring up a lot in this Chamber. It is the use of the congressional frank.

I will wager that when you were elected to Congress, the only thing you knew about the frank is that perhaps you cussed it from time to time when it showed up in your mailbox. I brought a copy down here because I am sure there are going to be staff and folks back in the office who hadn't seen one before, folks walking around the office building today.

But the frank, the congressional frank--why they call it the frank I do not know--is that signature that you and I put up in the top right- hand corner of our envelopes so that we can send mail.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you have gone to town hall meetings where this hasn't come up, I would be interested to know. Because on that list of congressional perks--and you know the ones I am talking about, ones like you get free health care for life, which of course is not true, ones like if you serve one term in Congress you get a free pension for life, also not true--but among those perks is the free mail perk, the congressional frank. It drives me crazy, Mr. Speaker, it drives my constituents crazy, and we have the power to fix it here in this Chamber. I want to stop the frank.

Now, folks might say if you want to stop the frank, why not just stop using the frank. Fair enough. It is because the law requires us to use it. I am going get to that later, Mr. Speaker, because I will bet you have not seen that code section before.

Here is an article from Bloomberg, Mr. Speaker, lest you think this is something that you and I just hear at town hall meetings. This is something that is out, and you see it in newspaper after newspaper after newspaper. A headline--this is two summers ago, Bloomberg: ``Lawmakers Intent on Dictating How the U.S. Postal Service Cuts Billions From Its Spending Are Among Those Helping Themselves to a Favorite Congressional Perk: Free Mail.''

I want to be clear: there is no free mail, there is no free mail in the United States Congress today. This frank that I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, every time you sign your name to the top of a letter you are paying the full freight on that letter. You are absolutely going to pay for it when it hits the Postal Service. Sometimes it is on the honor system that you are reporting it, sometimes the mail house here at the Capitol is counting it. There is no free mail.

But even a group as reputable as Bloomberg believes that there is. I know with certainty, because I hear it from my folks back home, our constituents believe that there is. In this time where trust is the commodity that is in the tightest supply in this town, we must do those things to restore trust with men and women back home. We must end this favorite of congressional perks.

Now, this is Bloomberg 2012, Mr. Speaker. I don't want you to think this is something that we have just started talking about. You can't see it from where you sit. But I also brought The New York Times from March of 1875. That is right. March of 1875, The New York Times is chronicling a vote that was taken right here in the U.S. House of Representatives. Well, not right here in this building on this floor. It was taken through those doors and into the next Chamber. But it says this. It says:

By a vote of 113 to 65, the House concurred in the Senate

amendment of the postal appropriations bill to restore the

franking privilege.

Now, the franking privilege, this signing of your name on a letter, it came from England, and it came in the early days of the Postal Service, where maybe you had an important governmental responsibility, maybe you needed to communicate with folks on the other side of the country and there was no local post office close by. You could be living out on the frontier, you could be far away, you just might not have had a coin in your pocket. So it allowed in the name of government efficiency for Members of Congress to sign their name at the top of a letter and drop that into the postal stream.

I promise you there is not a man or a woman who serves in Congress today who does not know where his local post office is. There is not a man or woman who serves in Congress today who struggles to get over to the grocery store where there are stamps for sale.

We do not need to be able to sign our names at the top of an envelope today to get it done, but in 1875, after Congress had abolished the frank, in the name of abolishing congressional perks, the Senate passed a bill to bring it back into being. The House concurred.

The New York Times says this:

So far as our observation goes, there has never been any

demand for the restoration of the franking nuisance, except

on the part of Congressmen.

I want you to think about this. Where does this sense that Congress gets free mail privileges come from, Mr. Speaker? It comes from the fact that, once upon a time, Congress actually got free mail privileges.

Again, the Postal Service was in its infancy, and in order to conduct the people's business, the franking privilege was adopted from what folks had seen at play in England, but in 1875, Congress was still trying to grapple with the distrust that the franking privilege created amongst its constituencies.

The New York Times, March 1875:

So far as our observation goes, there has never been any

demand for the restoration of the franking nuisance, except

on the part of Congressmen.

Mr. Speaker, what I hope you will help me carry to our colleagues is that we no longer need that franking nuisance.

There will be men and women in this Chamber who will say: Rob, what is the big deal? Don't we have bigger problems to struggle with?

Of course we do, but this one is easy for us to fix. There are those men and women out there who believe that there is a congressional perk that exists in this Chamber--at a time of record budget deficits--that no other American has access to, and we can abolish it with the stroke of our pen right here in the House.

This is something that has plagued me and my conscience in a way that I just wanted to stop using it. I just wanted to start buying stamps. I want you to think about the micromanagement in this institution, Mr. Speaker.

My plan--my radical plan--was that I was going to buy a stamp and send a letter. Whoa. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, it turns out that that is against the rules. I have a copy here of the Members' Congressional Handbook from this Congress.

It says:

Postal expenses can be incurred only when the frank is

insufficient.

That means, for the whole code section that tells you what the frank can be used for, only if you are outside of that code section can you put a stamp on.

I have highlighted it here, Mr. Speaker:

Postage may not be used in lieu of the frank.

Here it is, Mr. Speaker, in large print, with my name at the top of a letter. It embarrasses me every time it goes out the door because I know, even when I am doing the people's business--which I am doing with each and every letter that goes out the door in responding to constituents' concerns and in answering constituents' questions--that folks do not feel served on the other end.

They feel reminded that, perhaps, there is one set of rules for Congress and one set of rules for everybody else, but the rules that we have agreed to live by in this body prohibit me from buying a stamp and sending that letter out instead.

The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that it turns out, when the law is not written the way the law ought to be written, my constituents have empowered me with a voting card with which to change it.

I have partnered with my friend, Tammy Duckworth from Illinois, a Democrat on the other side of the aisle; and, together, we are going to stop the frank. We are going to abolish this so-called congressional perk--this free mailing privilege, this bane and stain in this Chamber--that folks have been fighting to get rid of for over 100 years. We are going to do it.

I am not optimistic enough to believe that this can be done alone. That is why I have a fantastic partner on the Democratic side of the aisle, and that is why she and I, together, are going to those groups around this town who care about congressional accountability in order to make them our partners in this effort. I have quotes from two of them.

If you sit on the right-hand side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, the National Taxpayers Union is certainly a group that you know and respect. Their appeal is certainly bipartisan, but I know it has credibility on the right.

The National Taxpayers Union says this:

Repealing the so-called ``franking privilege'' is a fair

and simple reform that will introduce pay-as-you-go budgeting

to one of the most basic units of government--the

congressional office. Check there ``on board.''

Now, if you are on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I know Public Citizen is a bipartisan group. They speak to folks on both sides of the aisle, and public integrity is their mission.

Public Citizen says this:

Public Citizen heartily supports the Woodall-Duckworth

legislation to rein in the abuse of taxpayer-funded frank

mail for Members of Congress, and it applauds your work of

making this commonsense legislation come from across party

lines.

We can do this.

Here is my frustration as a 3-year Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, and I know it is your frustration, too. You can't do the big things without each other, and it is tough to find one another when you haven't been able to do the little things together that build the trust.

Trust is the commodity that is missing. It is not just missing between our constituents and this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you know it is often missing within this Chamber. We must seize upon opportunities, big and small, to come together to do those things that we know are the right things to do.

I will say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker--because I know there are going to be folks back in their offices who are watching and who are saying: Hey, wait a minute. Don't we have a whole list of rules about the dos and don'ts of sending mail from a congressional office?

We do. Those rules and regulations are housed in what is called the Franking Commission today, which is actually the Committee on Mailing Standards.

I don't propose to abolish a single one of those. Those rules, for folks who don't know, are designed to prevent people from campaigning on the taxpayer dime out of their official offices.

Now, there are folks in this Chamber who might like to abolish those rules, too. That is not my fight. The standards that prevent Members from abusing the mail in their offices, that prevent them from campaigning out of their offices--all of those standards to try to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being targeted only at those taxpayer- required needs--will remain in place.

This, this signature at the top of a letter, suggests to every American that, somehow, when you get elected to Congress, the rules no longer apply to you, big rules and small rules, like licking a stamp. Now, you don't even have to lick the stamps anymore. You can just peel them off--they are self-stick now--and stick them right on.

We can do this. There is a low opinion that folks often hold of Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, but I believe we can buy stamps and stick them on letters. I believe that we can--but wait. There is nothing in what I propose that requires you to lick your own stamps or to even stick on your own stamps.

If you want to get a postal permit device like every business in America has, by golly, run your office like a business. If we want to change the rules, so that we use the penalty mail system, which is what the executive branch uses--what the White House would use, what the IRS would use, what the Justice Department would use, which is the same as a postage-paid marker from a business, except that it is a postage-paid marker from a government--fair game.

We are the only folks who run the show this way, and it is time for that to stop.

I don't think folks understand how far it goes. The franking privilege exists in statute. If I were to pass on my franking privilege, Mr. Speaker, it goes to my wife. Did you know that, if Members of Congress were to pass on, suddenly, their spouses would be allowed to start signing their names to letters and dropping them into the postal stream? Why is that? Why is this something that I can deed on after my demise? In fact, why is it something that exists at all?

The answer is, once upon a time, it was difficult to find a stamp. Can't we agree that those days are behind us?

Public Citizen can agree, and the National Taxpayers Union can agree, and Tammy Duckworth from Illinois can agree, and Rob Woodall from Georgia can agree. I know this is something that we can do together.

Mr. Speaker, I don't claim that this is going to be the proposal that saves the world. It is not; yet, for every taxpayer who opens up the newspaper every day and does not find news about how his taxpayer dollars are being invested transformatively in the lives of children, invested transformatively for men and women harmed in the defense of this Nation, but instead, opens up the newspaper and finds story after story of waste, of fraud and of abuse, our role here in this Chamber is to root that out and to stop it wherever we may find it.

Don't you believe, before we can help someone else clean up his house, we must clean up our own house?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to visit my Web page--which is woodall.house.gov/stopthefrank--because if you and I don't push this amongst our colleagues, it is not going to rise to the level of action. It is just something that we can do. We can do it. We can do it right away. There is no need to delay. We can begin restoring faith one bit at a time.

Let's restore faith with this today, with another bill tomorrow and with another bill the day after that, and one of these days, we might find that the American people have trust and confidence in their Congress again. It wasn't true in 1875, and it may be optimistic to believe it could be true in 2015, but I am certain of this: if we know that we have opportunities and if we fail to seize those opportunities, we will never earn and, I dare say, deserve the trust of our constituencies back home.

Mr. Speaker, send any of your constituents who are interested to woodall.house.gov/stopthefrank, and in fact, encourage the folks that you see and interact with from other parts of the country to visit Stop the Frank. Then encourage their Congressmen and their Congresswomen to be a part of this effort.

This does not have to be a partisan issue because it is not a partisan issue. This does not have to be a wait-and-see issue because it is an issue we have been looking at for more than 100 years.

What this can be is a get-it-done-together issue that, again, with one small step at a time, begins to earn the trust of the American people that I know each and every Member of this Chamber wants to earn.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 43 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 23, 2014, at 3 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the colloquy.

As I understand section 1051, the Secretary may continue to be responsive to emerging industrial and municipal water supply needs through reallocation of storage consistent with existing laws.

In that regard, an open and transparent rulemaking by the Army with substantive input from those affected seems to represent the best process to support that outcome.

Is that also the chairman's understanding?

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 585 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, the reason it is hard to get order down here on the floor of the House is it is kind of a celebratory atmosphere down here. We just saw the Water Resources Development Act pass by a big bipartisan vote.

It has been not a year, not 2 years--it has been years since we have been able to come together and pass this very important bill that deals with waterways and water supply all across this district. We do things together on a regular basis, but the big things are hard, and we have gotten to do the big things today.

I will brag on my friend from Massachusetts just for a moment, Madam Speaker. I was at Crews Middle School in my district last Friday, and Crews Middle School, their eighth grade class, Megan Mendez runs that class, but they were talking about how it is that they could be effective, how they could make a difference.

The students came upon Mr. McGovern's bill, I think it is H.R. 1692, dealing with Sudan and genocide, what we can do to come together to make a difference in other parts of the world.

Now, I represent Georgia, Madam Speaker. It is a rock-solid hardcore Republican constituency. Folks can surmise where Mr. McGovern, out of the great State of Massachusetts, what kind of constituency he represents there.

His ideas about how we could come together to make a difference for people resonated all the way down the eastern seaboard into that class at Crews Middle School, such that Nathan, Madeleine, Keegan, Georgia, Lauren all put pen to paper and invited me to come and talk about it to see how it was that we could come together.

Now, we didn't have the entire cosponsorship discussion there in the classroom on that day. We were trying to talk about making a difference.

That is what I get to come down and do today, Madam Speaker, with this rule that the Clerk just read. This is a differencemaking rule. It covers two bills today.

One is the Commerce-Justice-Science and related agencies bill. It is H.R. 4660, and the rule provides for an open rule, so that every single Member, no matter what their political stripe, no matter what their ideas, no matter where their constituency is located, any Member of this body can come to the House floor and offer their ideas to make that deal better.

It is a wonderful part of our process. It is a part of the process that gets used all too frequently, and I am very fortunate to be able to come and bring a rule today that does that.

Almost more fascinating, Madam Speaker, is that this rule makes in order the debate for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. It is H.R. 4435, and that bill--I am just going to consult my notes because it is almost unbelievable. That bill came out of committee 61- 0, 61-0.

Here we are, the bill that is going to authorize our entire national defense infrastructure, in what constituents back home believe is a hyperpartisan U.S. House of Representatives, made that way by incredibly divergent views held by American voters; and when it comes to national security, we came together at the committee level and passed out a bill 61-0.

This bill is made in order for debate by the rule that is before us today. I hope I will be able to get my colleagues' support for that.

It is, again, an open rule for the Commerce-Justice-Science bill and a rule for debate on a bill that came out of committee 61-0.

Now, what is fascinating about this institution, Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me. You hear about the arrogance of power in D.C., that somehow you get elected to Congress and you get inside the Beltway, suddenly, you think you are the smartest guy in the room and only your ideas are the good ideas.

This bill that came out of committee 61-0 isn't done with the legislative process there. This rule that we are debating today makes in order seven more amendments to that bill, so that we can all have a voice on that here on the floor of the House.

My great expectation is the Rules Committee is going to continue to meet this afternoon, making even more amendments in order. Hundreds of amendments filed to this bill, and the Rules Committee is working through trying to get through each one of those amendments to determine what we can make in order.

It is just a--I call it a festival of democracy, Madam Speaker. It is a festival of democracy that we are having right here on the House floor, where you not only have open rules, where every Member's voice is able to be heard, where every constituent back home is able to give that advice and counsel to their Member, and they bring those ideas to the floor, but it is on issues as difficult as national security, issues that do bring us together, but that have components that pull us apart, and we are able to work through that.

Over 300 amendments have been filed for this National Defense Authorization Act, and the committee is working through them even as we speak.

I know that every Member of this body has a contribution that their constituency has asked them to make, a voice that their constituency has asked them to come and bring. Madam Speaker, there are times where all of those voices, whether it be because of a clock, whether it be because of timing, whatever the reason may be, where folks don't feel like those voices have been able to be heard. This day is not that day. This is a day where we have an opportunity to make sure that each and every idea is heard and heard fully. And I am proud that the Rules Committee has produced this product today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a member of both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, Sheriff Nugent is the expert on these issues on the Rules Committee. I am proud to yield him an additional 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would advise you and my friend from Massachusetts that I do not have any further speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it would be easy to close debate just by reminding my colleagues that the gentleman from Massachusetts plans to support this rule. That is reason enough when we can find agreement in the Rules Committee on moving forward. But I hate to stop it there just because it is worth celebrating. It is absolutely worth celebrating.

The gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely certain we are spending too much on the Department of Defense. I am absolutely certain we are spending too little. The gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely certain that waste has no place in the Department of Defense. I, too, am absolutely certain that waste has no place in the Department of Defense.

Madam Speaker, just because this bill came out of the Armed Services Committee 61-0 does not mean that we do not have differences in this Chamber. We do. But this rule provides us an opportunity to debate those differences and then provides an opportunity for the Members of this body to have their will done.

Whether you are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act, or whether you are talking about the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, these bills did not come down from on high dictated by a Speaker or dictated by a minority leader. These bills were both crafted by the membership of this body, and this rule allows them to be perfected by the membership of this body should it pass this afternoon.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, so often folks will use this time in the morning to draw attention to failures or to divisions, but I want to use this time to draw attention to successes.

This is National Charter Schools Week, among other things, Mr. Speaker, and I happen to have two charter schools in my district. I represent only two counties, Mr. Speaker, Gwinnett County and Forsyth County, in the great State of Georgia. Both have outstanding public school systems.

And so often when we start talking about charter schools, Mr. Speaker, we talk about an either/or, as if somehow charter schools and public schools are in competition with one another, but that is not the story that I tell from the great State of Georgia. In fact, Gwinnett County, one of my two counties, won the Broad Prize in 2010 for the absolute finest urban education school district in the Nation. Interestingly, they are now reeligible to win that prize again this year after a 3-year waiting period. They are in the final two. Just amazing stories of young people and their successes. And they come through, among other things, two charter schools in my district.

We have the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, GSMST, Mr. Speaker. They don't have a football team. They have a robotics team, and an outstanding robotics team at that. If you want a future in the STEM fields, you can find no better education in the United States of America than the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, and it is free if you just happen to live in Gwinnett County. A wonderful story of success through the charter school program. Absolutely any student in the county is eligible. In fact, it takes a lottery to get in, Mr. Speaker, because so many young people, so many families want their children to be able to avail themselves of this charter school program.

The Washington Post called it the 17th most challenging high school in the land. U.S. News & World Report called it the third best high school in the land. I, of course, believe it is the number one best high school in the land, but an amazing testimony of what you can do when you free an institution, when you free the teachers, when you free the students to be the very best they can be.

Now, right next door, Mr. Speaker, to GSMST, the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, we have the Maxwell High School of Technology. Now, the Maxwell School aims to take folks, these young people who are trying to find their way in life, and prepare them for a job tomorrow--program after program, Mr. Speaker, whether it is Web design, whether it is welding, architecture, technology field after technology field, not thought of theoretically, Mr. Speaker, but thought of from how can you graduate from high school and begin to provide for yourself and your family. That is not available in the normal public schools, but it is available at the Maxwell High School of Technology. And again, any student in Gwinnett County is welcome to come and be there.

Mr. Speaker, we still live in a land where there is more that unites us than divides us. We still live in a land that brings people together rather than tears people apart, and the charter school debate should be that debate. It should be the debate not that pits public schools against private schools; it should be the debate that brings us together around making sure that every young person in this land, every family in this land who has a dream of what they want to do with their life, that we have the public schools in this land that can help them fulfill that dream.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing that successfully in the Seventh District of Georgia, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in this Chamber to make sure we can do that successfully in every single congressional district in this land.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, but what you all may not know is about the amazing accomplishments of a young freshman at South Forsyth High School down in my district. Her name is Kelsey Hirsch.

Having been affected by all of the events that she saw in the media around our part of the world, she founded a group in my neighborhood. It is called Bands4RAINN. RAINN is the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, and she came up with the idea of selling wristbands to raise money for that network.

She set a goal for herself of raising $600. She ended up raising more than $10,000. She ended up winning the HOPE Award for RAINN. She ended up founding a group at her high school called WarEagles4RAINN, and this weekend, she is holding a Concert4Courage and Hoops4Hope, which are two more fundraising events, to draw attention to sexual assault and violence, particularly among young people.

Mr. Speaker, one person can make a difference, and in my district, it is Kelsey Hirsch, a freshman at South Forsyth High School.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material into the Record on H. Con. Res. 96.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I rise today on behalf of the Republican Study Committee. As so many Members of this Chamber know, the Republican Study Committee is made up of those most conservative Republicans here in the House; and while I serve on the Budget Committee, I have great respect for our Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, and I have a great belief in the budget that came out of that Budget Committee.

The Republican Study Committee's role is to try to do even better; and, Madam Chair, we have brought just such a budget today. We call it the Back to Basics Budget, and it is the budget that balances the fastest of any budget that we are going to be debating here on the House floor.

In just 4 years, it will bring us to balance, but I am not here about the numbers. I am here about why the numbers matter because, for every year that we are not in balance, we are not just borrowing that money from our children, we are paying interest on that money that could have gone to other priorities.

You will hear in this debate today about priorities that my friends on the other side of the aisle wish we would invest more money in that they don't believe our budget invests enough in.

That may be true, yet what our budget does do is begin to pay back the debt in ways that we can take all of that money that we are dedicating to interest today and dedicate it to American families tomorrow.

Of all of the things we disagree on in this Chamber, I think we can agree that the best use of our dollars is not in their going to pay creditors, but in their going to serve constituents, and that is what the Back to Basics Budget will do for us today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank my friend for his fealty for The Heritage Foundation. I share that and would remind him that the Heritage action is key voting a ``yes'' vote on the budget before us today.

If he would like to be in line with Heritage, he can vote ``yes'' with me today. I would welcome that support.

With that, Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Scalise, who is the chairman of the Republican Study Committee and a gentleman who has provided huge leadership for us in this Conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say: Nonsense. Nonsense. This is the only budget that is being presented that includes the Tax Code Termination Act that terminates every single special interest loophole in the entire Tax Code. Both gentlemen know that. Every single special interest exemption, exception in the Tax Code is gone under this budget.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a fantastic member of the Republican Study Committee and a member of my class of 2010.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Maryland if he has any speakers remaining.

I would ask the gentleman if he would like to give me the opportunity to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have talked about tax breaks for the rich here. There are no such tax breaks in this budget. We have talked about the preservation of corporate loopholes. There are no such preservation of corporate loopholes in this budget.

I will say it again. This is the only budget that we will vote on that includes the Tax Code Termination Act, which admits to one another that the tax system we have today is broken. Republicans and Democrats alike have riddled it beyond repair with special interest loopholes, exemptions, breaks, and special carve-outs.

I, Mr. Chairman, am the cosponsor, the lead sponsor of the Fair Tax, the only proposal on Capitol Hill that abolishes every single deduction, exemption, exception in the Tax Code. So nonsense, if folks will suggest that this is a budget for special interests.

Let me tell you what this is a budget for. This is a budget for working Americans, because, Mr. Chairman--you saw it earlier when the chairman of the Republican Study Committee held up this chart. The red line represents a pathway of economic ruin contained in the President's budget.

The President talks about a balanced approach, and yet his approach never balances. The Republican Study Committee budget balances more quickly than any other budget proposal that we will discuss.

Does it have to make tough choices to do it?

Yes, it does. What is the benefit of those tough choices, Mr. Chairman?

The benefit is in interest savings alone. If you support NIH, as I do, with just the interest savings between our budget and the President's budget, we couldn't just double NIH funding, we could triple it, not just this year but every year in the budget window.

Mr. Chairman, on our current path, by 2017 we are going to be spending more on interest on the national debt than we spend on the entire Medicaid program to care for our children and our elderly.

By 2020 we will spend more on interest on the national debt under the President's proposal than we will on all national security concerns combined.

There is not a family in America, Mr. Chairman, that believes they can borrow their way into prosperity.

The interest that we pay on the debt that the President proposes that this Nation borrow steals opportunities from our children. It is immoral to advance our generation today at the expense of generations tomorrow.

Does this budget make tough choices?

It does. There is only one budget that we will be considering today, Mr. Chairman, that takes steps to protect and preserve Social Security. That is the RSC budget.

There are only two budgets that we will be considering today that take steps to ensure the solvency of Medicare for generations to come. That is the RSC budget and the Budget Committee budget.

Mr. Chairman, you cannot talk about a balanced approach that does not balance. You cannot talk about making tough decisions if you are willing to do nothing to save those programs, Medicare and Social Security, that so many of our families back home rely on.

We know those programs are headed towards destruction, which is why the RSC has made the very difficult choice to begin saving them today.

It will only get harder if we put those decisions off until tomorrow. We say, do it today.

I urge my colleagues to support the Republican Study Committee budget, as has been key voted out of organizations across this town.

I will end as I began. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland recognizing the support of those outside organizations, and those are organizations committed to balancing this budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady so much for yielding.

You are allowing me to correct a grave mistake I made earlier today. I had the great pleasure of carrying the RSC budget to the floor today. We weren't able to succeed in passing our balanced budget, but we did succeed in passing the Budget Committee balanced budget. I think that is a great success for this House, but those successes don't happen by themselves. They happen because we are surrounded by staffers in this institution who do an amazing amount of work day in and day out.

In my case, it is Will Dunham, who is the staff director at the Republican Study Committee; the very able budget staffer there, Matthew Dickerson; and my own budget associate, Nick Myrs. Without their help, it would have been impossible to put that budget together, and I am so grateful for their commitment to this institution and to the very difficult work that we do.

With that, I thank my friend very much for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor today, actually, with three of my constituents from Lawrenceville--Keeran and Hailey and Ashley--because this is budget week. This is when we decide what our priorities are, and there is not going to be a man or a woman in this Chamber who does not believe that what we do, we do for this next generation of Americans.

The question will be: What do we do?

The rule that we are going to take up here this afternoon is going to make every single substitute amendment offered in this Chamber available for a vote on this floor, so that America can see what our priorities are and can choose among them.

Madam Speaker, this is the very best of our Republic that will be on display this week, budget week, and I am just pleased and honored to be a part of it.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.